As a judge, I value clear and organized argumentation that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic. I prefer debaters who are well-researched and able to support their arguments with evidence and examples according to their given framework. In Parliamentary, I appreciate teams who focus on clash and weigh the competing arguments and their impacts. In Lincoln-Douglas, I expect debaters to engage with the philosophical implications of the topic and provide a clear value framework that is consistently applied throughout the round. I expect all participants to adhere to the principles of fair play and respectful discourse. It should be a given that rude, disrespectful, and aggressive behavior will not be tolerated and will result in low scores or disqualification.

Hello, I am a parent judge and have been to quite a few online and in-person debate tournaments. This however will be my first year to judge speech events though. I look forward to seeing you at the upcoming tournament!

Hello, debaters!

I would appreciate keeping your delivery clear and unrushed, and taking care to emphasize your framework, as well as your most important contentions and refutations.

I probably respond better to a respectful tone/approach, rather than one that's highly aggressive or confrontational.

I understand that "tricks" may be part of debate, but if you find yourself needing to refute a series of frivolous contentions, I will probably be lenient with very cursory refutations. Just dispatch with the tricks quickly and move on.

Eye contact and showing at least a little bit of your genuine personality is appreciated. Let's have some fun.

I have been a judge for over 2 years.

The side that addresses everything on the flow will have an advantage on my ballot. In debate, I like to see strong clash and make sure to be clear with signposting. That will be easier on my flow.

Your speeches will appeal more to me when you’re calm and composed.

You’ll likely get more speaker points if you give a thoughtful and comprehensive response during cross because it shows that you are quick at thinking on your feet.

Make sure to warrant all your arguments and during your last speech, crystallize it for me and show why your side outweighs.

Parent judge, please talk very slowly and explain points well, signpost clearly, extremely lay

I am a parent judge, and am new to judging. Please speak at a moderate pace. I will judge the round on impacts and strengths of the overall arguments. I like references (Examples: Facts, statistics, etc.). Please be kind and respectful.

Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.

Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)

If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.

Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.

IN GENERAL

I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.

I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.

BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR

I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.

K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.

Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.

Please do not spread, you can talk at whatever pace that is comfortable for you, but not too fast.

Criticism will NOT be tolerated. Judge your opponent's arguments, not them.

I do appreciate sign posting.

I vote on who has the biggest impact/value.

Please use vocabulary everyone can understand.

Good luck

Hello!

I was a past debater for about three years, specializing in LD, but I have done both PuFo and Parli as well. I do flow and base a lot of the round on the flow, so please be good with signposting! Treat me kind of like a lay judge, over explain if you want, and tell me where you are on the flow during speeches. As far as pronouns go I use any, feel free to state yours if comfortable.

Not a fan of spreading/super fast talking, I can flow fast if need be but I'd prefer not to as I'll likely miss some arguments. Also not a big fan of kritiks and off-topic arguments. I was always a traditional debater- pen and paper- so adding more policy takes to LD makes it harder on me since I'm not a big fan of the two colliding at all. Traditional > circuit debate.

I hate kritiks, only run them if you have clear and concise links and explanations. I can’t understand spreading, PLEASE treat me as a lay judge. Plans and counterplans I can attempt to follow if they’re explained thoroughly and argued well. If not, don’t run it. Seriously, I was a traditional debater. I do not understand circuit stuff.

I put a lot of focus on the value/value criterion debate so please go philosophical and hit me hard with it!! Connect your case and contentions deeply with your framework and impacts. Speaking of impacts, state them clearly, please!!!

If you have questions before the round feel free to ask! All in all, focus on having a respectful debate.

Freeman, William                 Oak Park High School                                 

Background:

I am a commercial litigator in a large, national law firm. I have 6 years’ experience judging Lincoln Douglas and other debate formats.  I recognize that Stanford’s debate competitors are neither attorneys nor college students, but I expect that they will understand and comply with all rules, format, and approved tactics of Lincoln Douglas debate. 

Approach to Judging/Preferences:

I understand all of the rules, tactics and subtleties typically arising in a Lincoln Douglas tournament, and expect the debaters to do so as well.  I will endeavor not to impose my beliefs, pre-conceptions or knowledge of the topic on the competitors.  Similarly, my approach is not to impose my preferences on your debate competition. If you are complying with all applicable rules and tactics, I will adjust to you.  This includes spreading, theory arguments, blocks, etc., etc.

I do expect that participants at all times to act courteously towards their opponents. 

I like the value debate. Be clear on clash. I like clear voters (Vote for the Affirmative because #1, #2, and #3).

No spreading, no circuit (no theory, kritiks... if it's not about the topic it's not going to be flowed).

I competed in National Parliamentary Collegiate Debate and Lincoln Douglas Debate from 2015-2019. I am familiar with Kritiks, spreading, procedurals, and technical forms debate. I was a finalist at PSCFA champs and an octafinalist at NPTE and NPDA for parliamentary debate. In terms of IEs, I competed in open IPDA, open LD (TOC/Progressive), and junior impromptu.

I majored in Philosophy and Political Science in undergrad and will appreciate any logical arguments that are made. I just graduated law school, so bonus points if you want to throw a good philosophy or a legal argument in there!

This is your game. I will listen to anything. You can run whatever position you want as long as you are respectful to your opponents. I will vote on anything if you explain why your impacts outweigh.

You can run any kind of theory you want. However, I am less likely to vote on Ts and Procedurals that are not contextualized to the round. If there is theory introduced, I will likely first look to unresolved offense on the theory positions when deciding my ballot.

Remember that T is a priori. T's should be complete with interp, "we meet," standards, and voters. At the very least, answers to T should include counter interp, "we meet," counter standards, and responses to voters.

I need you to provide a perm text if you are running a perm. Do not just tell me "perm do both" without further explanation. Give me net benefits to the perm. Likewise, on the neg, I like hearing disadvantages to the perm in addition to perm theory.

It is highly unlikely for me to vote on theory introduced in the MO. Generally, I do not think introducing new positions in the MO is the best idea, but run whatever you would like to run.

Lastly, please be respectful to your opponents. I find it distracting when teams are rude to each other.

Please speak slowly and clearly, do not behave rudely.

Pronouns: She/her

For background, I debated PF 4 years with MVLA. As much as I might like to think I am a tech flow judge, in reality, I am very flay. If you see anything on my paradigm that you disagree with, feel free to ( nicely ) talk me out of it, I'm open to being persuaded.

First speaking teams: unresponded-to defense that you put on their case does not need to be extended, but if it is absolutely crucial to you winning, maybe consider bringing it up again (obviously you must respond to things if they are frontlined). Any offense must be in summary but I'll extend dropped turns as mitigation.

Second speaking teams: Turns and disads coming out of 1st rebuttal must be responded to or it's a drop, you can respond to terminal D in summary.

Both teams: I really do need clean extensions of all necessary links and impacts in summary and final focus if you want offense. This doesn't mean that you need to give me your whole case again, but I do need all the links necessary to access the impact you are going for. Make it clear !!!

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over an unwarranted card. Extend logical warranting in addition to links cards/impacts otherwise, I won't want to vote on it

Please signpost by voter, links, or impacts (PLS number them, its greatly appreciated). I don't always catch card names and I guarantee I'll miss content if I don't know where to flow.

Miscellaneous

- Content warnings: you need to read a content warning if you are discussing sensitive topics or topics that may endanger people's safety. My preferred method is reading the warning before the round and providing your phone number so people can anonymously tell you if they are uncomfortable. You must have a backup case to read if someone is uncomfortable.

- Speaking: Some speed is fine, i'll say clear if I can't understand. Speaks are based mostly on content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well.

-Cross: I generally don't listen at all, but I do catch things if they stand out (i.e. being rude/yelling, referencing "judge"), but if you concede something in cross it can be brought up in speeches. If I didn't hear it happen and the other team says it didn't, I just won't consider it.

- Theory/Progressive args: On the one hand I do think that theory can disadvantage new debaters or underfunded teams, but I also think its really fun and can lead to a lot of more positive changes in debate, so run at your own risk, and think about whether your shell or K or whatever is worth the exclusion. I think progressive args are super fun and I did run some while debating, that said I'm not an expert so if you do run them make sure to fully explain.

- I presume 1st speaking team if I need to.

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. Also, please do metaweighing if teams clash on weighing (which is almost always). I really do love a good weighing debate, please weigh.

-Collapsing: please collapse. I get it, sometimes you need to fill up a speech or you just feel like you'll be stronger if you keep all your args, but being able to very clearly defend one arg is really so much better than under covering a couple.

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, it’s still wrong. Find cards within a couple of minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to and if my decision hinges upon the validity of a card that's been highly contested.

- Please be respectful during the debate. I'm not afraid to tank speaks if you're being rude, and I will honestly be more likely to find a reason to drop you.

- If you're running econ arguments I feel the need to tell you that I am particularly bad at comprehending these, so simple explanations will be appreciated if you have time. Don't fret, I still treat it like any other argument, so even if I don't understand it I'll vote on it if you handle responses to it

- If you ignore my paradigm, I'm not gonna drop you (unless it's the bolded parts) so feel free to debate in the way that's most comfortable to you, this is just what I like.

- I attempt to be a visual judge, so if I'm nodding it means I understand and you can move on, if I'm frowning it means I'm confused, if I'm smiling it probably means that I think something interesting is going on.

• I’m a new judge so I likely wont understand off cases but if you’re convincing and reasonable enough, I might vote on it
  - Don’t over complicate your arguments and keep them logical
• I enjoy aggressive cross X and think that it can demonstrate the skill of a debater. Just remember to always keep it respectful
• Clash with your opponent
• Talk at a reasonable speed. I don’t like spreading but if you’re going to do it, share your case

ABOUT ME

Background: He/him/his pronouns. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and IEs for six years. I’ve also been judging local tournaments on-and-off for many years. I was not very competitive in high school (I mostly did Model UN lol) and learned more about debate through teaching and judging.Update: I am currently a first-year law student at the time of writing and probably will not have time to judge rounds anytime soon, so please take a look at my judging record and make fair assumptions based on how long it's been since I've last judged. I'll try to keep this paradigm current if I judge a tournament, but ultimately it's your responsibility to check with me if you need clarification on anything.

TLDR: I’ll flow the round and vote off what’s on my flow. Tech>truth. Rules are never automatically binding, but I may give presumptive deference. Generally, feel free to go fast with some exceptions (below). I consider off-time roadmaps a must, and when you’re responding to framework, please state it explicitly (e.g. “The order is 1) framework 2) on-case 3) two offs.”) Make flowing easy for me: extend, cross-apply, collapse and weigh. I like to see lots of clash and clear, warranted links. In general, I think my thoughts on debate shift around a lot over time, but I will try my best to keep this paradigm updated as my beliefs change. At the moment, I'm somewhat conflicted on how I feel about email chains and speed. Feel free to ask me about anything unclear before the round begins.

DEBATE, BY EVENT

LD: I do not consider value/value criterion to be mandatory. Feel free to simplify your framework debate to a general weighing mechanism; just make sure to be clear about it. Continue reading below:

PF (and LD cont.): I generally do not flow or pay attention to cross-examination. If you anticipate that there’s any chance whatsoever that some part of your theory position may depend on cross-ex, please let me know before the round begins. I will in no way count it against you if you don’t actually end up reading T. Accordingly, I consider cross-ex to be entirely your time to get clarification on your opponent’s arguments, call for cards and prep your next rebuttal. No need for theatrics to try to make your opponent trip up over their words or something; it won't be on my flow.

CX: I have not personally competed in this event, but have judged in the past. I don't have a particular approach to judging CX different from other debate events; I am a tabula rasa judge that's moderately comfortable with speed and T/K.

OPEN DEBATE

Plans/Counterplans vs. Contentions: I believe that the Affirmative generally gets to frame the debate. Usually, that will fall under one of the following two categories: 1) a topical plan versus the status quo or another competitive counterplan 2) AFF contentions in support of affirming the resolution versus NEG contentions negating the resolution. I prefer plan debate over contention debate, because I believe it structurally favors clash and good debate. Notwithstanding, I will vote for contention ACs but make sure to read clear, warranted, link chains and don’t assume you solve for all your impacts by fiat.

Theory: What is debate? What should debate be? If you want to win a theory position in front of me, be prepared to convince me of your answer to these questions. At the end of the day, the “rules of debate” are what the debaters themselves make of the activity. I subscribe to the belief that the reason that debate exists is because it’s (one of) the only spaces where students can make an adult sit down for an hour, listen to their ideas and take them seriously. To keep debate meaningful to that end, debaters themselves ought to be the ones to decide how debate is practiced and adjudicated. Theory is the primary tool for self-enforcement of what I see as made up, debatable rules.

When reading T, read an interpretation, violation, standards and voters. Read your interpretation slowly, and then repeat it again. Argue each of these points out and do not assume I already know what you mean if you just say “strategy skew is bad for education.” Be clear about what you’re saying and highlight points of nuance. When the round has multiple theory positions, it’s ever more important for you to argue why I should prioritize some theory over another.

Some specifics: 1) Outside the round, I am generally conditionality bad but it’s up to you to convince me one way or another. I tend to think limited conditionality is reasonable (e.g. the NEG gets one condo counterplan and one condo K). 2) Dispositionality means nothing to me. It should mean that the CP is unconditional unless the AFF perms, but as long as teams are reading dispo with different rules, the inconsistency makes the term useless. If you’re reading a dispo position, be extremely clear what the condition to kick is. 3) Disclosure as a practice is good, systematically abusive use of disclosure theory against small schools/new debaters is really, really awful. 4) Theory can be an RVI but that’s still up for debate, and usually shouldn’t come down to theoretical abuse.

Kritik/criticisms: I’ve read a couple and heard several different Ks in rounds, but be forewarned that I am absolutely not an expert on everything when it comes to K. I am less experienced with performances than K of case. I like to hear fresh and exciting debate, but make sure I can understand what you’re reading. Make sure to have a clear link, impact, alternative and alt-solvency. Like with T, read your link slowly, twice.

Speed: Update: I have not judged a round in a very long time; DO NOT SPREAD. My comfortability with spreading tends to vary based on how active I’ve been in the speech and debate community. If my judging record indicates that it’s been more than six months since I’ve last judged an open debate round, please check with me prior. Generally, any rate of delivery up to around 300 wpm should be perfectly fine – I can type well over 100 wpm – as long as you’re enunciating. If it becomes a problem, I will call slow/clear. For newer debaters: you may interrupt your opponent’s speech by stating “slow” or “clear” if you can’t hear them. If your opponent doesn’t acknowledge your request, you may consider reading a “theory” argument that they ought to lose the round for disregarding basic debate etiquette. Debaters planning to be toxic and spread a new debater out of a round: be forewarned, my threshold for voting on such T shells is low.

Other: Do not neglect signposting. If you blitz through your arguments, I can get lost in my flow if you don’t make it easy for me. If whatever you argue isn’t on my flow, I cannot and will not consider it in my decision. I highly recommend that you read author and year slowly and twice before each card. Make it crystal clear where your warrant ends and where analytic or impacts begin. I expect that counterplans are competitive. I will vote on a perm for non-competitive counterplans. Impact calculus is magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability and reversibility. All of the above are important. I will default to weighing them about equally until/unless you argue otherwise and give me reasons to prefer one (or more). One of my biggest debate pet peeves: Debaters wasting precious rebuttal minutes on the framework debate unnecessarily (e.g. when you’re going for two different, highly specific forms of utilitarianism but your impacts weigh equally regardless of which one wins). I think I have moderately expressive non-verbals. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 very poor 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should be in late elims, 30 you are in the top 1% of debaters I’ve seen.

NOVICE DEBATE

Be respectful of your opponents and do your best. The most important thing is to have fun and learn! If your opponent is doing something really abusive in the round, I will vote on theory. For new debaters, this means that you can argue that they ought to lose the debate for being abusive. Do not under any circumstances read frivolous T in novice. Do not read K. Do not spread unless you have explicitly checked with your opponent and they have OKed it. See the “Speed” portion of my paradigm above. Make sure to signpost clearly and I highly recommend that you say author/year twice for every card. Weigh out the impacts of the round and read voting issues (explain to me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s, and why you should win). Use all your prep time and don’t concede rounds even if you think you’re losing. You never know what’s happening on my flow, and mine is the one that ultimately matters. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 lot of room for improvement, 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should probably be in open, 30 no, but seriously, why are you in novice?.

Hi my name is Kelani Kronberger, I am apart of the speech, debate and theatre club at OCC. When I judge debate I want to see everyone having fun when debating, doing their best, and feeling confident when debating.

Traditional judge / This activity is to prepare for life. It is not a game - Ask me in round.

She/Her

Debate's an L.

LD is based on : value structure, proof, argumentation, revolutionarily, clash, delivery etc.

Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list my argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments. Example: If Neg runs a conditional CP, and Aff says condo bad, I’m probably erring Neg if Neg just makes the standard responses to that shell. If they fumble it, I’m fine voting Aff.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.). Another important thing to note: if you’re Neg, and Aff doesn’t run a plan, you’re probably not going to win if you run a counterplan. Just read specification theory instead.

Style: Keep roadmaps short. Speed is fine as long as you send everyone your doc and you enunciate. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on it. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Don’t assume that I’m familiar with your literature base, because I’m probably not. I understand how Ks function, and I hit them a few times in high school, but don’t read a thousand layers of dense philosophy and assume I’ll get it.

It’s hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework, but it can be done. I don’t vote for most kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.

Hello, My Name, is Serena Lopez, what I would like to see during the debates is confidence and respectfulness. During the round please be clear with your arguments and try not to rush your words. Overall, please make things are understandable and clear.

Overview:

I'm a former debater who focused on LD for my four years, competing at league, invitational, state and nationals. While I did compete in other events; like Congress, Parli and Impromptu occasionally; my experience in other events is mostly limited to spectating, helping other teammates or judging. Event-specific information on my judging style is separated below, but for a couple general points first:

• SIGNPOST in all events so I can understand and judge you properly. In debate events, this obviously takes the form of taglines and directly referencing the flow. But you do this too in speech/interp events, albeit in a more pretty and implicit way, by outlining the structure of your piece and using transitions when moving from one idea to the next.
• For debate events, I'll evaluate you in prongs: this essentially means I imagine myself as a panel of three judges with different judging styles and imagine how each of these judges would view the round. This is meant to 1) reduce my bias against styles I personally dislike and 2) encourage competitors to create cases and arguments that would satisfy all sects of judges rather than pandering to one style. Typically these are the archetypes of a lay, technical, and traditional judge. For transparency though, I was a traditional debater.
• Debate constructives should contain a clear round interpretation (observations like framework, weighing mechanism, definitions, plans, etc.) for me to evaluate the round on, warrants in the form of strong cut cards with impacts that link back to your round interpretation, and elaboration as to how your whole argument is significant to the resolution/topic and should make me vote with/against it.
• In all debate events, I want to see meaningful clash and extension throughout the round for rebuttal speeches on both the interpretation of the round and the warrants/impacts of each constructive. Balance offense and defense while explaining how each line of argument on the flow is going to impact my final decision.
• For final speeches in debate rounds (voter's, final focus, summaries, etc.) be strategic and prioritize the lines of arguments that you think will impact my decision the most and are the greatest chance at you securing my ballot rather than just listing off from the flow. Typically that means I want to see no more than 5 key issues, all of which reference previous speeches in the round. After all, the purpose of this speech is to condense the round, not expand it.
• In debate rounds, speaking style will never play into my ballot decision (*unless its a technical issue which prevents me from understanding you or it's World Schools*). After all, that's what speaker points are for. But once we get into break rounds, all that goes out the window because we aren't giving speaker points anymore.
• For debate rounds, I never disclose the result unless it's a break round. The most oral feedback I'll give in prelims will be maybe like one note for each side if I believe it can help them in their next immediate round. In parli/WS though, that would almost never happen since the topics change every single round. The only way I would give oral feedback in these types of events is if I felt I had a note that wasn't topic specific (speaking style, case structure, etc.) for both sides. For breaks though, in all events I'll typically ask the debaters if they want any spectators to step outside and then give a more detailed explanation for my decision.
• For speech/interp events, content and presentation are both essential for me and should somehow thoughtfully contribute to the overall purpose of your piece clearly. Include unique elements that are personalized to your style/background because you want to be memorable (in a good way of course). Technical errors (stumbling in your script, volume, etc.) can obviously hurt you, especially if everyone else in the room doesn't make these mistakes, but I'm not going to make you automatically last because of that unless it hinders my ability to understand you or be engaged in your piece. So keep going: if not for this tournament, then to practice for the next!
• Congress is a mix of debate and speech judging due to its nature, but keep in mind the key differences. I'm judging you on your speech content not to decide whether or not I support the bill/resolution, but rather whether or not you are meaningfully contributing to the discussion. And I'm judging you on your presentation/roleplaying not to be entertained, but to see if you're persuasive. Ultimately it's about leading the room to a healthy discussion and interacting with the other competitors strategically (whether that be as dissent or agreement) so you stand out *in a good way* among the 10+ of you that I all need to rank.
• Spectators are okay if every non-spectator in the room (judges and competitors) is okay with it. At some tournaments though, keep in mind you aren't allowed to bar spectators in break rounds (unless the spectator in question is still in the bracket, in which I case will always ask them to leave myself). If someone is going to spectate, I expect them to be respectful (no talking, no electronic use, no notetaking, etc.).
• If you break the rules of your event (for example: introducing new arguments in the final speeches of debate rounds or using props in non-informative speech rounds), I'll ignore everything you attempted to accomplish with that rulebreak in my decision and may even weigh it against you in certain circumstances.
• In debate events, I typically allow up to a 20 second grace period to wrap up a speech/answer. If you exceed that time, I'll assume you are unaware of your time, say "Time" and expect you to stop talking within 10 seconds. For cross-examination/crossfire, I'll do the same if you ask a new question after time has already ended. Also keep in mind if you try to use this grace period to begin new argumentation after time (like fitting in your last rebuttal in sparknotes form or giving an entire summary), I'm not gonna flow it.Once that timer goes off, my pen goes down.
• Anyone being explicitly hateful or discriminatory (racist, colorist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anti-semitic, islamaphobic, etc.) will be voted down, given low speaker points and/or ranked at the bottom instantly.
• If your comments and RFDs are blank or short, most likely I missed the timeframe to edit feedback and wasn't able to submit them before the tournament closed because, as seen in this paradigm, I have a tendency to write too much! By all means, feel free to email me at akshaynmaharaj@gmail.com and I'll reply with a completed version. If you did get complete feedback but you still have some questions, you can also email me for that. Just make sure you include identifying info like the tournament, event, round and your code.

PuFo:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card.
• Please don't have a sole contention, especially if it also has subpoints. I can guarantee that you could divide that into actual contentions.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing weighing and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think is the "more skilled debater" but rather who successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponent could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches (summary/final focus) because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely necessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both teams fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither team really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• PuFo is the one debate event where I think clash isn't required in the NC. After all, both teams are allotted the same amount of speaking time and can't actually interact with each other until crossfire. Plus under the NSDA format, NEG/OPP can sometimes speak first while AFF/PROP goes second. With that being said, every other phase of the debate (rebuttal, summary and final focus) is expected to acknowledge all of the previous speeches and bears the burden of clash on the flow. This means that although the NC doesn't have to acknowledge and respond to the AC, I expect the AR to respond to the NC and extend the AR while NR responds to both the AC and AR plus extending the NC. This trend continues for the summary and final focus speeches. And I guess if we're in NSDA rules and NEG goes first, the same applies vice-versa with the AC not having to acknowledge the NC but the NR having to respond to the AC while extending the NC and the AR responding to both the NC and NR while extending the AC.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with final focuses for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• Compared to the questioning counterparts in the other debate events, I expect more courtesy for crossfire. Avoid follow-ups without consent and be sure to take turns. Dominating crossfire doesn't necessarily reflect good on you and could affect speaker points negatively.
• I expect both teammates to participate in grand crossfire. One teammate saying significantly more than the other can negatively impact speaker points.
• Events in crossfire are binding but will not be introduced onto the flow until mentioned in speeches.
• If no weighing mechanism is given by either side, I generally default to cost-benefit analysis. This isn't ideal of course, since it's pretty general and hard to apply. So please give a weighing mechanism so I can do my job more clearly!
• Similar to Parli (and I suppose CX if I unfortunately ever end up judging that), I expect teamwork and synchrony of ideas. Both teammates must carry their weight for extensions: ideas across speeches need to be so in synchrony that it's like one person has been giving all the speeches while still acknowledging that there's two of you on the AFF/NEG. One of the best ways IMO for you to accomplish this is directly referencing who said what on the flow during signposting (i.e. "As my teammate explained in our constructive . . ."/"During their last rebuttal, our opponents claimed . . ."). Similarly, passing notes can come off positively if you're entrusting an idea of yours to your teammate and they present it properly, or negatively if it's just an attempt to put your words in your teammate's mouth because they themselves have no clue what you need to say.
• If you're going to whisper during your opponents' speech, make sure it's low enough that only your partner can hear it. Otherwise, stick to nonverbal communication like writing and pointing. During prep time, this is less of an issue. The only way loud whispering could affect my decision though is through speaker points.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.
• No, I will not join the email chain and you shouldn't either: To be clear, I'm not talking about just sharing cards digitally upon request since that's basically the same as passing printed cards. What I'm referring to is sharing your entire case/speech beforehand because you know it's impossible to understand verbally or is poorly formatted. Or during rebuttals, you share a giant document of blocks, many of which you don't end up reading. If both debaters agree to doing an email chain I suppose its fine between them, but you reserve your right to refuse and demand specific cards be requested and provided traditionally (even if that means a debater has to show their whole laptop because they don't have paper copies). I, however, will never join the email chain myself because in this event I'm judging you on what you can verbally communicate, not by reading your speech and cards myself.

Congress:

I said most of it in the Overview section, so I'm just gonna give a general list of my Congress icks (AKA DON'T DO THIS)

• POs Trying to Correct Each Other --> I will intervene and stop that.
• Besides that, I will not intervene at all. If the round breaks from the rules, I will hold any offending Senators/Representatives responsible only in rankings and expect the current PO to intervene in my place. If that doesn't happen and the round runs off course, I will hold the PO responsible in rankings. Typically I judge POs on transparency (communication with the Senators/Representatives as to how you're running the round), fairness (even question and speech distribution), presence (your speaking style in commanding the room), and management (running the round according to the rules and on time).
• Unnecessarily Clashing (Especially with Competitors on the Same Side of the Debate) --> This is not a debate round, this is a discussion. It's not like I'm assigning wins and losses or holding you to a flow where you must respond to everything. In fact, I generally find decisions to agree with other competitors and expand upon their ideas intriguing. Only oppose other competitors if they go against what you are trying to stand for with your speech and if it will further discussion.
• "Some senators have argued . . . " --> NAMES. Names with everything. Being able to reference different competitors in the room directly has always been my favorite part of Congress. It shows you are actively paying attention to the speeches and serves as an invite for competitors to respond, thereby enhancing the discussion. I don't mind name dropping a bunch of your competitors if they've all been saying the same argument since it contextualizes who's on each side in the round.
• Disturbing Decorum--> We get enough of this in our real legislative bodies unfortunately, I don't need this in a mock round. Causing chaos or intentionally trying to be as controversial as possible will make you stick out, but not in a good way.
• Too "Debate"y --> Read my section on speech for some general tips, since speaking well is more than just speaker points and will affect your actual rankings. Besides that, remember you aren't assigned to a side and don't bear the burden of clash automatically. Technically in this roleplaying, the people you're supposed to be "convincing" are the people on the other side who you're arguing against. This means that if you're going to be combative or unwilling to budge from your position, you need to give a solid explanation as why it's important for you to take this stance.
• Too "Speech"y --> Just as a constructive can have a hook but still needs contentions, your entire speech cannot be just one drawn-out summary or repeating of one argument phrased beautifully. We need substance to base discussions off too, and that means making arguments for or against the bill/resolution that will deepen the discussion in the room.
• Exceeding Time--> Although I allow a bit of a grace period to finish your current sentence in other events, I expect competitors to respect the timing of the PO and yield if overtime no matter what. As soon as the gavel starts banging, you need to stop talking ASAP.

Parli:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card . . . if you somehow have them in parli.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing framework and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve. Because of the spontaneous nature of parli, the technical judge's standards of evidence would be lower as compared to other events.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think are the "more skilled debaters" but rather the team that successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponents could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both teams fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither team really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely neccessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with the first speakers' second speeches for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• I expect the teams to clearly establish which type of debate (fact, value or plan) the resolution falls under. If there is a disagreement, clash over it AND explain the implications of either interpretation on how I'll judge the round.
• Definitions tend to be more annoying to me in parli than other events due to the volatile nature of the topics. Because of this, I'm more willing to buy arguments of the abuse, although you still have to explain why the implications of this definition are unhealthy for the debate and provide an alternative definition. If you feel you're being unfairly accused of abuse, the simple way to defend yourself from this is to simply prove the debate is still winnable for the other side under your definition.
• POIs are always acceptable to waive down, but there also an opportunity to get insight into your opponent's strategy and frontline. Waiving them down will only really reflect poorly on you if your opponents previously took significantly more POIs than you because they're a grace we extend to each other . . . but that would really only affect speaker points. The same would apply if there's a team imbalance in who's asking the POIs.
• Points of order (yes I'm not gonna call them POOs) should not be thrown around freely and only be brought forward when you believe a rule violation that could affect the round is actually happening. After all, it's not like I'm going to just give you an automatic win if I agree with your point. As I said above regarding rule violations, all I do is consider the round as if the sentences which provoked the point never happened. Time will stop during this, but keep the point of order and the defending team's response each within 15 seconds. So points of order should not be back-and-forth and should never exceed 30 seconds total.
• Similar to PuFo (and I suppose CX if I unfortunately ever end up judging that), I expect teamwork and synchrony of ideas. Both teammates must carry their weight for extensions: ideas across speeches need to be so in synchrony that it's like 1v1 while still acknowledging that there's two of you on the AFF/NEG. One of the best ways IMO for you to accomplish this is directly referencing who said what on the flow during signposting (i.e. "As my teammate explained in our constructive . . ."/"During their last rebuttal, our opponents claimed . . ."). Similarly, passing notes can come off positively if you're entrusting an idea of yours to your teammate and they present it properly, or negatively if it's just an attempt to put your words in your teammate's mouth because they themselves have no clue what you need to say.
• If you're going to whisper during your opponents', make sure it's low enough that only your partner can hear it. Otherwise, stick to nonverbal communication like writing and pointing. The only way loud whispering could affect my decision though is through speaker points.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.

Speech:

• Give me an outline no matter what so I know where your speech is going. The more natural it is --> The better received it'll be.
• If you're going to mention anything potentially triggering or traumatic (suicide, abuse, etc.) please give a content warning for the sake of your fellow competitors and if there's spectators.
• For the prepared speech events, I expect the speech to match the event, especially in CHSSA. Unless we are at NSDA or other tournaments where OA doesn't exist, I expect your speech to be either written as a clear OO in OO or a clear OA in OA with little overlap.
• Balancing your subject between the niche and important is essential. Your want your topic to be unique, but if it doesn't engage me at first MAKE me engaged and think I've learned something new when coming out of the round. I'm open to any topic: I'm not going to write something like "pick a better topic" or "this doesn't engage me because I can't relate." With me you have the ability to make anything interesting, just make sure you don't set yourself up for failure with a speech that isn't focused or has nowhere to go beyond surface-level.
• If you are struggling to remember your speech, KEEP GOING. I know it's embarrassing and feels cringy, but don't worry I will suffer through that cringe with you. You're never going to learn your speech better for future events if you just shut down.
• Although I dislike canning in impromptu, if you're going to do so: spend more time connecting your examples and elevating the prompt than explaining what your examples are. I can tell when you've rehearsed telling a story every single round, and trust me I will get bored.
• In extempt you need content AND presentation. All information should be organized to thoroughly answer and elevate your prompt.
• In the spontaneous speech events (extempt and impromptu), one of my biggest annoyances is when you warp the speech structure you outlined originally so that you can fill the rest of the time or finish in time. Everything should be thought out and properly paced.
• Self timing is only allowed in extempt and impromptu. For prepared speeches, I can give time signals if someone in the room requests them and everyone in the room will get them if done. Generally, I'll hold up one finger for one minute used, hold up two fingers when you're halfway through your time, and then hold up one finger again for one minute left. I will not give a time signal when your time expires, but that won't be a problem unless you go over the allotted grace period for your event (typically 30 seconds). Even then, I let Tabroom handle time penalization instead of factoring it into my own rankings, unless the tournament explicitly asks us to apply the penalty directly.
• In every speech event except extempt (since it's usually just one speaking competitor and judge in the room at a time), I expect you to perform to the house. Simply put, this means performing to everyone in the room. You treat us all as your audience that you need to engage, even your fellow competitors who aren't up currently, because that is the purpose of a speech unlike debate where you just need to convince the judge(s). So don't just make eye contact with the judge(s), treat everyone as an audience member.
• Hand gestures and posture should come across as calculated, meaning they enhance from your speech rather than distract from it. In moments I would prefer keeping your hands still than overusing motions with them unintentionally while you talk. With that being said, it will look a little unnatural if you're just standing there for prolonged periods of time like that one emoji, so keep a good balance.
• Speaking style (like tone, facial expressions, posture/gestures, etc.) should match the content of your speech. So when you're giving multiple layers to your speech (which I would definitely recommend doing), that means your speaking style needs to change naturally to suit the content whenever necessary.

Interp:

• If you're going to perform anything potentially triggering (suicide, abuse, etc.), please give a content warning for the sake of your fellow competitors and spectators if they're present. I'm looking at you DI . . .
• Your tone should match your event. Obviously HI should be humorous and DI should be dramatic. If you include elements of a contrasting tone occasionally, they should be in service of achieving your primary tone.
• POIs and Duos can vary in tone, but they should take advantage of their unique format (i.e. combining multiple sources or two performers).
• Half the battle is picking and creating a good script, so you are accountable for the quality of it in addition to your performance. It should be clear to understand, memorable in its purpose, be a good fit for your identity/personality, etc.
• Characterization through mannerisms and voice is essential, especially if you are performing multiple characters so they're distinct.
• Scene transitions can be nice but aren't necessary as long as it comes across when we're changing scenes.

LD:

This is my area of expertise, so obviously this section is gonna be the longest. But I don't want to one of those judges with the paradigms that are impossible to read when you get Tabroom postings 5 minutes before the round, so here's a not-so-short summary of the most important parts:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds. Afterwards when moving into their speech, the debater should make clear when exactly they have begun time.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing framework and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think is the "more skilled debater" but rather who successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponent could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely necessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both debaters fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither debater really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with the AR2 for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• Can I keep up with spreading? Yes, assuming you're good at it and can still enunciate properly. Do I want to? NO. I won't instantly vote you down for it, but expect low speaker points. I also won't say "clear" or whatever if I can't understand you, I'll just stop flowing. Besides, cases that require spreading tend to be weaker in LD just because the event prioritizes key voter issues and framework over card quantity.
• So actually CHSSA temporarily changed the rule this year so plans are " strongly discouraged," whatever that means. Regardless I'd still heed what I wrote below and in the subsection about this since it does pertain to my preferences. It just means I don't have the grounds to automatically rule against you anymore on this basis, but I pretty much never did anyways.
• CHSSA rules don't allow plans, but NSDA does.I'll follow the rules of whatever ruleset the tournament is being held under. With that being said however, there's a difference between plans/counterplans and advocacies/counter-advocacies and plans are still unnecessary under NSDA rules.
• For circuit tactics like theory, Kritiks, link to extinction arguments, plans/counterplans, etc: I won't vote you down instantly but know that I generally hold these to a higher standard just because the majority of bad circuit debaters use these tactics to actively avoid clash and secure "automatic" wins. If you're going to do them, do them RIGHT. I'd highly recommend reading the section for what you to plan to run.
• CX is binding but cannot be considered in the round until a speech introduces events from it onto the flow and extends it for me. It's also one-way, with the questioner being allowed to cut off their opponent and the answerer being expected to respect that.

Constructive Formatting:

• Greetings with your name aren't necessary, but if it's your style I get it. All I expect is for you to state the resolution and your side.
• Hooks can be nice if done properly but are by no means necessary. Only do them if you have a good one that can further your point.
• Signpost at the beginning of each observation.
• Every contention and subpoint needs a tagline, which must be signposted.
• Please don't have a sole contention, especially if it also has subpoints. I can guarantee that you could divide into actual contentions.
• Contentions/subpoints should include properly cut cards which are verbally cited w/ at least a source (author/organization) and year and clearly divided from elaboration/paraphrasing through the use of "Quote/EndQuote."
• Summaries at the end are appreciated and recommended but not required.
• The NC is expected to be shorter so you have time to address the entirety of the AC. Clearly denote when you switch sides of the flow.
• End your speech by opening yourself to CX.

Definitions:

• Only define words outside the resolution if you feel they're needed to understand your case. This includes uncommonly-heard abbreviations and extremely technical language.
• Definitions need to be directly quoted and fully cited. You can paraphrase after reading a card, but the basis of your definition must absolutely come from a card.
• If you want to extrapolate specific observations for the debate from a definition, do it as a frontline rather than strategically leaving first mention until rebuttals. This gives your opponent a fair window to address it.
• There's nothing that drags the debate down more than a pointless definitional debate. Don't waste your time arguing between slightly different wording of the same idea. Only challenge definitions if you think they could impact the actual debate and my decision.
• If you are going to challenge a definition, you must do three things: 1) explain why your opponent's definition is inapplicable or unhealthy for the debate and shouldn't be considered --> 2) provide an alternative definition (mostly applies to NC only, new definitions shouldn't be provided in rebuttals) --> 3) explain why your definition is better than your opponents.
• Generally I consider definitions abusive if they take away all ground from your opponent and make it impossible to win the debate as long as your opponent fully extends it. Abusive definitions will never be actively rewarded and I will try to side against them, but I can't do so unless you enable me to do so by properly refuting the abusive definition. Even if the abusive definition goes through or is overturned, it doesn't guarantee the win either way.

Framework:

• Some type of framework is absolutely necessary in LD, but it doesn't have to be a value + value-criterion. I've seen values by themselves work. I've even seen successful cases that just have a standard. As long as your framework can clearly explain how my weighing of the debate will operate and act as a mechanism/lens for me to judge the round through, it's fine. Just know v+v/c is popular because it works well.
• Values are general principles that should be universally upheld while value-criterions are topic-specific ways to measure/achieve the value through affirming/negating the resolution. Both can be attacked during rebuttals.
• I like framework debates but, like with definition debates, please make sure they lead somewhere. Only focus on the framework debate if you think it will make or break my decision. There is nothing wrong with collapsing frameworks if they are basically the same because in these cases you win by arguing how you uphold the framework better.
• With every criticism of your opponent's framework, explain how your framework is better and avoids these problems.
• Double blocking is a good but not foolproof strategy when done properly, but make sure you carry it throughout the round.
• Every argument/contention should be linked back to and weighed through framework.
• Unless framework was truly nonexistent in the round, it should almost always be a voter issue.

Cross-Examination:

• In LD CX is a one-way questioning period that we extend to each other. When getting questioned, you're expected to respect the time of your questioner and in turn they are expected to do the same for you during your questioning.
• In other words: if you're conducting a cross-examination, you have free reign to cut your opponent off. Of course doing this in a respectful way will lead to better speaker points, but still be forceful if necessary.
• And that also means if you're getting cross-examined, respect the time of your opponent if they want to interject, respond to the question in front of you, and never try to speak over them.
• I prefer you face me the majority of the time, but I won't judge you if you look at your opponent since a lot of lay judges post-COVID think the opposite. At most, it could affect speaker points (and probably only if you fully turn 90 degrees from me and make zero eye contact).
• If you're cross-examining, please make sure you give an actual question to answer. You can leave your argumentative statements for your speech.
• Events in CX are binding but will not be introduced onto the flow until mentioned during speeches.

Rebuttal Structure (Second Half of NC + 1AR + NR + 2AR):

• This should be obvious but no new arguments introduced. Everything said needs to be an extension of previous speeches or in direct response to something said during your opponent's previous speech. If your opponent makes a new argument, point it out so I can exclude it from weighing, minimize my intervention, and ensure my judgement is fair.
• Move through the flow in a logical manner (one side then the other, observations first and then contention-by-contention, etc.) with signposting. This is where I appreciate off-time road maps the most since they tell me the order you'll be going in.
• Framework needs to be interacted with in some form, be it as concession, collapse or a framework debate.
• A2s and cards can provide concise responses and will definitely appeal to my technical lens since you're reading evidence against evidence, but they aren't required. Of course you can't just make a warrantless response back, but it's acceptable to refute a contention by pointing out the flaws in your opponent's own cards or interpretation of them. This is especially true for philosophical debates, unless of course you're arguing over what a specific philosopher actually believed.
• I get so annoyed by debaters who overuse dropping. Just because your opponent responded to the whole contention and not a specific card doesn't mean the entire contention flows through --> It just means that specific card flows through, assuming of course nothing your opponent said during their rebuttal could be easily applied to it. Do not cry "dropped" lightly because I, through my flow, will know whether or not it was actually dropped. And even if it was actually dropped . . . then what? Extend and tell me how this argument flowing through helps you win the round. This isn't a point system. If your opponent drops your nine weak subpoints but manages to win the one argument that outweighs them all and actually matters, then they're going to win!
• In fact I think choosing to ignore weak contentions in favor of prioritizing the bigger arguments is good, as long as it comes from a place of strategy and not inability to keep up the flow. Hit every part of the line-by-line of course, but there's more ways to respond to an argument than just trying to refute it.
• Turns are encouraged as long as they are done properly and fully extended out.
• I encourage double blocking if possible so that you don't have to win every single line of argument.
• After successfully defending your own contentions, take the opportunity to extend them.
• Your final rebuttal speech must include voter issues that you've been extending throughout the entire round. Weigh the most important arguments of the round and give me a clear list of reasons why I ultimately vote for your side.

Plans/Counterplans vs. Advocacies/Counter-advocacies:

• NSDA allows plans/counterplans, so they're acceptable at tournaments under NSDA rules. In these rounds, I will put aside my biases and consider them valid. With that being said, a plan forces you to a higher standard of evidence & specificity, and I will still need to determine whether or not your plan/counterplan actually affirms or negates the resolution at hand.
• CHSSA rules ban (or for the 2024-2025 year, "strongly discourage")plans/counterplans, and I will uphold this rule at any tournament under CHSSA rules. Like with new arguments, call your opponent out on this so I can exclude it from weighing, minimize intervention, and ensure fair judgement.
• With that being said, there are certain rounds where I'd have to ignore this rule to be able to judge it: If you respond to a plan under CHSSA rules without calling it out for being illegal, you give it validity as an argument and I am now forced to only weigh off the rebuttals you provided. So please, check which ruleset the tournament is under and call out plans under CHSSA when you see them!
• With that being said, many debaters in LD often misunderstand what a plan/counterplan is (which makes sense since LD isn't a format you see them often) and confuse it with an advocacy/counter-advocacy. Basically there are four key differences: 1) a plan typically pre-emptively provides specific means of implementation (a reference to an existing piece of legislation or an original ABC format with enforcer, funding, timeframe, etc.) while an advocacy is just a general idea of what we should do --> 2) plans include aspects that aren't completely guaranteed by fiating the upholding or rejection of the resolution yet attempt to claim benefits from them --> 3) a plan can only be compared to another plan or the status quo, while an advocacy can just be shown as generally bad --> 4) most importantly, plans shifts the focus of the debate from the topic to the plans because, while in plan debates you only need to defend the plan you provide, advocacies/counter-advocacies are used in argumentation about whether we should affirm or negate the resolution.
• Basically CHSSA bans plans/counterplans in LD (which full disclosure I agree with) because plans seek to avoid the value debate of the resolution by limiting their burden and the scope of the topic to something so specific that it's unfair to expect debaters to anticipate the hypothetical world their opponent creates, especially given the constraints of the format. On the other hand, advocacies/counter-advocacies, assuming they are actually those and not plans of course, are healthy for the debate because they are primarily used to clarify what each side wants to and can achieve in their world based on the resolution's presence without guaranteeing they will.
• Despite their differences, they do have one thing in common: mutual exclusivity is required for offensive use. In order for it to be a reason to vote for you over the other side, the plan/advocacy must only be possible in either a world where I affirm the resolution if you're aff or negate it if you're neg.
• Defensive use of plans/advocacies does not have the same requirement of mutual exclusivity, but keep in mind it can only ever minimize, not turn, the impact of the original target argument since you're basically just showing an alternative solution.

Circuity Stuff:

• Full Disclosure: I personally dislike circuit debate. Again I will do my best to put this bias aside for fairness sake and give circuit debaters a chance, but I do have to be strict with these arguments since they are often used just to avoid clash over the resolution.
• Can I keep up with spreading? Yes, assuming you're good at it and can still enunciate properly. Do I want to? NO. I won't instantly vote you down for it, but expect low speaker points. I also won't say "clear" or whatever if I can't understand you, I'll just stop flowing. Besides, cases that require spreading tend to be weaker in LD just because the event prioritizes key voter issues and framework over card quantity.
• As a general piece of advice for any debater who knows they struggle with understanding spreading, I recommend asking your opponent if they will be spreading beforehand. Since this doesn't involve disclosing case material, I generally believe debaters should be obligated to answer. If there's any hint of spreading, set a baseline. This essentially just involves you handing any paragraph of text to your opponent, having them read at their normal speech, and saying when you can understand them as they adjust their speed. Not only will this set your expectations and protect you from ambush spreading, but it also becomes much easier to delve into theory if necessary. Obviously, do not abuse this. I'll just think it's an act if either a) you ask them to slow below conversational speed or b) you talk faster than them.
• Even if you run a plan, I will judge it like an advocacy (read the section above if you're confused what I mean). It cannot stand on its own. It still needs to prove why I should affirm or negate the resolution because that's what I'm judging, not a policy round. And in tournaments under CHSSA, you shouldn't be running plans at all, only advocacies at most.
• No, I will not join the email chain and you shouldn't either: To be clear, I'm not talking about just sharing cards digitally upon request since that's basically the same as passing printed cards. What I'm referring to is sharing your entire case/speech beforehand because you know it's impossible to understand verbally or is poorly formatted. Or during rebuttals, you share a giant document of blocks, many of which you don't end up reading. If both debaters agree to doing an email chain I suppose its fine between them, but you reserve your right to refuse and demand specific cards be requested and provided traditionally (even if that means a debater has to show their whole laptop because they don't have paper copies). I, however, will never join the email chain myself because in this event I'm judging you on what you can verbally communicate, not by reading your speech and cards myself.
• Theory: Signpost and include all components (the interpretation, violation, standard, and voters). But like with all claims of abuse, it won't secure guaranteed wins and can only be used to win lines of arguments that still must be extended and weighed. This is because I basically always default to "drop the argument" instead of "drop the debater," so you need to give me a pretty convincing reason in extreme circumstances to convince me to overturn my paradigm. Also, if you argue theory, it better be related to something your opponent specifically did during the round and not to just debate in general . . . as then, not only are you wasting my time, but you're claiming to everyone who chose voluntarily to be here, including yourself, that this whole debate is an unfair waste of time.
• Ks: They absolutely must be topic-specific, and you must explain how negating the resolution or dropping your opponent's argument is the only way to avoid making this fundamental incorrect assumption. Also, all standards of evidence go out the window once you get to this level of esoteric philosophy. So don't waste my time reading some dumb K about how extinction is good and solves everything on a debate about voting rights because I'm sure at that point I'll buy anything your opponent says.
• Running any circuit argument does not absolve you from the normal duties a debater must perform. You still need to debate the resolution, obey the rules, respond to your opponent's arguments, and weigh the round with key voter issues.
• If you're facing a bad circuit debater, still make an attempt to refute your opponents arguments and prove why you still have won the round. I don't want to have to end up voting against you and for your opponent just because you gave me no opportunity/basis to.

Hello,

I am a parent judge.

Be respectful and track your time. Honor your time limits.

Arguments should be delivered properly with emphasis on communication delivery. Be precise and communicate your point well.

I do like to take notes and would be doing it during the rounds.

Above all, keep things civil.

Extensive evidence is no use if not analyzed.

Your arguments ought to be able to convince both myself and my 7-year-old cousin.

General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.

I am a senior at UCLA. I am a double major in Computer Science and Mathematics. I have limited debate experience, mostly constrained to observation and judging. I also have 6 years of experience as a secondary school and early college tutor, mostly in mathematics and technical writing areas. Furthermore, I have a strong technical and formal writing background in CS, Mathematics, and Philosophy (logic and logic-adjacent fields). I am especially interested in formal logics and their applications.

LD is my favorite event.

Since I'm relatively new to debate, I may not be familiar with all event-specific jargon, or topic literature. I have learned many of these things quickly, but please err on the side of caution or I may not understand a position of yours as well as you would like.

As a judge, my focus is substantive and logical argument over rhetoric. That's not to say that I completely disregard rhetoric in debate, but rather, that I believe debate is an academic endeavor aimed at discovering the truth on some matter. Therefore, I think clear definitions, logical argumentation, and coherence and consistency. Most rhetorical devices should be reserved for aiding a listener in following the development of a well-constructed and logical argument (e.g. analogy, metaphor, etc. where appropriate). In general, I am likely to give preference to well-constructed and logical arguments over ones which rely heavily on rhetoric and non-logical rhetorical devices.

TLDR: I subscribe to the idea that debates should have a basic adherence to first order logic, reasonability, and common sense, and that LD in particular should not be a biased event (favoring either the aff or the neg in an equal-skill round, under a typical debate-interpretation of skill). I completely admit that this paradigm may be considered very interventionist by some less traditional debaters. Recall that debate is intended to be judged by members of the general public, and is not debate for debate's sake. To think otherwise is to deprive the activity of the majority of its purpose.

I try to evaluate LD on the following framework:

Constructions: I flow the verbal constructions, not the documents. I will not look at any documents you send me. Please note this in conjunction with my stance on spreading (below). Constructions are the foundation of the debate. Anything that is a voter was in a construction, or has foundation in it. That does not mean everything in the construction is a voter. But, any position in the construction could be a voter. In particular, presence or foundation in a construction is requisite to being a voter. The immediate consequence of this view is that I do not vote on arguments introduced without foundation in later speeches. This includes evidence that is on a card or a document or other medium, but not in the verbal construction. Furthermore, your opponent does not even need to point out a position introduced later without foundation. I will simply ignore any and all discussion which lacks foundation from the first two speeches in the debate.

Constructions are also the only place where you may establish your framework. Framework positions given in rebuttals, without foundation in a construction, will be ignored.

Cross Examination: I don't flow cross. Cross is for you to prepare your next speech. Q/A in cross does not serve as foundation for a voter in a later speech if it was not brought back up in the speech immediately following your cross. This is particularly relevant for the neg - if your cross vanishes in your 1NR, it vanishes from the debate. Same is true for the aff on the 1AR; however the foundation for arguments in the 2AR should be in the 1AC and the 1NR, regardless of what happens in cross.

Rebuttals: All flowed. You can expect that most (but not necessarily all) voters will be issues extended in a rebuttal speech. This includes not only the 2AR and the 2NR, but also the 1AR. However, I reserve the right to vote on points in a constructive which are not addressed by one side or the other, especially if their magnitude was made out to be large. Furthermore, you can expect it will be rare, but in a close debate (e.g. the rebuttal speeches are complete washes) I may vote on issues which were only in the constructives. You may think of this in the following way: Voters in later speeches will generally have larger magnitude when I decide the round.

Symmetric rebuttals, without further substantiation in the form of evidence or in lieu of logical refutation of your opponent's position, will be considered a wash and not voted on. So you can give a symmetric argument (e.g. aff says housing -> employment and neg says employment -> housing) and I will simply draw the sides on that point, unless one side does more work to say why the other side is wrong.

Furthermore, conditional arguments may become voters if I feel that your attempt at using conditionality is just to avoid a concession. For example, saying "that argument was conditional, so I'm dropping it" in your 2NR, after the aff has rebutted you in the 1AR, is probably not going to fly. Strategic concessions are just that - concessions. It is certain that if such a 'conditional' argument, as described in the example, is addressed in the 2AR that it is going to become a voter (or not a voter, depending on what is being argued) in favor of the aff, regardless of whether an appeal in the 2AR was made to the content of the argument itself or to the theoretical issue of conditionality.

Voters: So far we have that for an issue to be a voter it must have foundation in a constructive (from either side). Additionally, the following may disqualify an issue from being a voter without a squeak from your opponent:

• Circular arguments. The following schema is circular: p -> (a1 -> a2 -> ... -> an) -> p ~ p -> p. Why are circular arguments bad? Because they hinge on the truth of the premise which is being assumed. Which I, as a judge, know nothing about. That is, you have not convinced anyone of any truth - so I cannot vote on it. Non-trivial circular arguments may not be discarded if your opponent does not point them out (e.g. arguments where n is large in the above schema). An example of a trickily-constructed circular argument, that would be discarded without mention from the opponent, is the following: "If shelters worked, why would we be debating the right to housing? Therefore, shelters do not work." Veiling circular arguments with rhetorical devices (such as rhetorical questions) will not work.
• Otherwise logically invalid arguments, which are trivially invalid (see validity here). Trivial meaning the scheme of the argument is sufficiently simple that I could write its truth table in a few seconds. An example of a trivially invalid schema is the following: a1 -> a2. a1. ergo a3. Another example: a1 -> a2. ~a1. ergo ~a2 (this is the converse, an extremely common example I see). However, complicated invalid arguments may be voted on if your opponent does not point out their invalidity. Note that I do not require that your arguments be sound.
• Tautological arguments are not voters (p or ~p, "the car is red or it is not red"), unless your framework explicitly excludes first order logic. Word of warning: if your framework excludes first-order logic, you need to define your logic, or I won't be able to flow any of your points effectively. Generally considered to be dangerous territory.
• Deliberately contradictory positions are not voters. Basic adherence to logic means adhering to p or ~p.
• Evidence violations. Generally as according to the NSDA handbook. However this is something that usually needs to be explicitly brought to my attention, because I don't read any documents.
• Ad homs. Will never be voted on. Ever. No exceptions. e.g. "my opponent is unprepared for this debate".
• Framework. I will never vote on framework alone. Framework is a mechanism to establish the magnitude and probability of an impact (e.g. both debaters agree on utilitarianism as a value criterion so the magnitude of their impacts will be judged on whichever helps the greatest amount of people). I will never vote on something like "utilitarianism is better than pragmatism" directly.
• Not obviously topical, without justification that it indeed is. For example: You are the aff, the resolution is "Should the United States Government guarantee the right to housing", and your "construction" consists of one fact each about 256 different animals. If you do not clearly establish how these animal facts support the resolution, you are going to lose. In this case, the neg doesn't even have to win - you will just lose, because you have no voters under my paradigm.
• I couldn't flow it because you spoke too fast or unclearly. Returns to such an issue in rebuttals will be considered to lack foundation unless your opponent deliberately concedes the foundation. This may be an issue while spreading (above 350 wpm). May be resolved if your opponent understood the point and debates you on it, such that I am able to piece it together. That is, you have the benefit of the doubt here.
• In order to understand your points it would take me more time to consider them than there is in the speech, or you use words that are so incredibly uncommon I do not know them (e.g. "supererogatory") and therefore cannot understand what you are saying. This largely falls under the above - I won't be able to flow it. This additionally applies to word-salad. I probably will write a question mark. I have before. Clarity, please.
• Platitudes are not voters on their own. Justify. Justify. Justify.

How debates will be decided based on the voters:

I decide based on expected values of (the surviving, subject to the above disqualifications) issues and impacts. That is, probability and magnitude (and sign, could be negative impact). Both of these are subject to framework. So, if you win on framework, and your probability and magnitude under your framework are bigger, you are going to do well. If nobody wins on framework, then I will default to epistemic modesty, where probability of an impact becomes the conditional probability given the likelihood of the framework. The likelihood of a framework is something you should argue for. The probabilities I decide can also be a function of the soundness (strength of links) of an argument itself, if they are independent of the framework.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below this point you can find my wishn't list. This list consists things which will largely impact your speaks, but in severe cases will impact voting.

• Extinction. You better have a good case. E.g, probability for the argument "homelessness causes nuclear war" is quite low, so the expected value is going to be near-zero by default.
• Theory debates. Unless they are clearly warranted. Especially applies to opening with theory in your 1AC.
• Plan affs trying to prove generality from a single instance. This scheme is invalid (there exists x, blah, therefore for all x, blah). You are at risk of losing all possible voters in your case
• Too many positions. Hard to flow. Easy to discount. Dilutes magnitude. Substance over quantity, please. Expounding deeply on a few positions is generally better than adopting very many and say very little about each. You have a time limit - use it wisely.
• Spreading (>350 wpm). Often lacks clarity. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other notes

• Status quo arguments, especially ones that argue for solvency, may open your argument to judgement under the common experience (i.e. my opinion) unless mechanisms for how solvency is achieved are clearly laid out.
• I like aff implementation (usually not plan aff). Some of the LD issues seem difficult to argue without at least tacit points about implementation. Plans will also help you solve, and if you solve you are likely to win the round.
• Counterplans good. But they should a) only be introduced if the aff has a plan and b) be competitive with the aff plan. Introducing a cp without the aff espousing a plan is introducing an argument without foundation (i.e. you are negating nothing).
• I am very open to post-round questions from contestants.
• If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me before the round.

I am joining to judge to keep the round going smoothly. I would like the rounds to go in a smooth fashion making sure that teams are staying on topic. Watching the teams be sure they are using appropriate language and supporting their understanding of the topic being debated. I want the students to have a fun but educational experience during their debate. I am excited to see how the students will come to the debate prepared and hopefully excited for their debate.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

Hi, I'm currently an OCC Student in my first semester of Speech and Debate. I look forward to watching all the debates to learn more about the topics. I'm looking forward to a clash between each other's arguments, and whoever's statements are able to stand up against their opponent in the end. Also, repetition and reiterating your points are very helpful in keeping track of everything thank you. While being respectful and able to enjoy our time.

I've assistant coached for 15 years mainly as an IE coach. I recently received my first diamond. :D

Debate:

In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.

I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.

I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.

If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.

I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.

I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!

Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and value criterion as well as your opponent's.

IEs:

These events are my jam. I will do my best to write you as much feedback as I can. :)

I always keep taking notes to make the best decision, and I will do my best as a judge. I would like to see good debates.

• Experience:I’m new to Public Forum but have a background in Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate.
• Fairness:I strive to be fair and objective, ensuring my personal biases or prior knowledge do not influence my voting. I base my decision on which team debated better, not on which team aligns more with the truth.
• Style:Please speak slowly and clearly. Make sure to flow your opponents’ arguments and address their main points in order. I prefer debates with clear organizational structure, allowing for reasoned judgment.
• Quality Over Quantity:I prioritize the quality of arguments over the number of arguments. I vote for the team that presents stronger debating. Source credibility is important to me—if you cite qualified sources, mention their credentials and provide exact quotes rather than paraphrasing, as this increases their believability.
• Note Taking:I will take notes during each speech to keep a detailed record, which helps me organize the debate and evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals:In your summary speeches, be sure to highlight the key points you want me to consider and explain why they outweigh your opponents’ main arguments.
• Respect and Enjoyment: Have fun and do your best! Please treat each other with respect throughout the debate.

I was a policy debater back in the 1990s and am now a law professor. I have not judged for a while. As I'm learning about LD debate, I will do my best to take a tabula rosa approach.

My name is Murgesh Ramasamy. This is my second time judging. So please be respectful and kind to your opponent. Please speak moderate speed.

I have competed in policy/CX, LD, Congress, and mock trial. I can judge policy, LD, Congress, parli, and world school/forum. I can judge pofo, but I prefer the other styles of debate more. You can use any debate language with me. Please follow the tournament circuit rules. I do NOT like spreading. If you have to read fast to win a debate, then you aren’t really arguing. Quality, not quantity.

LD: I am a traditional LD debater, coach and judge. I will flow your entire case and argument. I will expect you to prove that your value can be achieved.

CX: I am a traditional policy/CX debater. I will flow the entire round. I will look that you prove the stock issues for your case.

Parli: I will flow the arguments and make sure that you do not drop any arguments. I will look that you prove your case depending on the type of resolution.

Congress: I will flow your speeches, and I will look for well thought-out arguments for or against the legislations. I prefer logical, common sense arguments over niche, out-of-the-box arguments for/against the bills.

World School: I will flow your speeches, and I will look for well thought-out arguments. I will look that you do not drop arguments, and that you follow the rules of the tournament with timings, questions and points of clarifications.

I'm a traditional judge who prefers non circuit arguments. Evidence is important, but you should also use logic and reasoning to persuade me. Spreading is a no go with me, if you start I'll tune you out.

Hello! I'm Nebi Samuel. I was a varsity debater at The Meadows School for 3 years, now a freshman in college. I'm not super picky but there are things I WON'T VOTE FOR.

I probably won't vote for bad theory because bad theory is bad but if you can convince me it's good theory, go ahead and run it.

I will never NEVER, vote on RVIs. Never again. If you say the words "RVI" I will sit and stare at you with a disappointed face and write down nothing on my flow.

Other than that the usuals. Have a clean fair debate. Be respectful of your opponent. If you are disrespectful, I WILL vote against you. I will listen to pretty much any argument as long as you have adequate evidence and explanation.

email is: samuelnebi@gmail.com

I'll disclose if I feel like it.

I'm a former LD competitor and coach, now back to coaching after a significant hiatus. I'm generally open to hearing any kind of arguments, although if you decide to run theory, please make sure you are doing that because you genuinely think there was an egregious violation of some sort. I really hate it when people run theory to waste people's time or when they do that against an inexperienced debater. Disclosure theory in particular: I really dislike when people run it against a stock case. If it's a stock argument, just answer it. I know you've heard it before and it's not unfair. In my opinion, theory should never be run in Public Forum. I do appreciate if you make me think. Please be super clear and crisp in your delivery, if you decide to be quick. Some of the recent developments in progressive argumentation are new to me, so make sure you explain them fully and why I should vote for them. I'm a history teacher and have my Ph.D. in Political Science, if that helps you understand my background knowledge base. Also, it bothers me if debaters are rude or mean.

'Sameer' or 'judge' (he/him)

I have extensive experience as a technology leader, leading multiple teams and managing complex software projects. My strength lies in my ability to understand complex ideas and critically evaluate classic debates in an unbiased manner. In any debate, I stress the importance of respect and inclusivity, and I expect all participants to base their arguments on the ‘why’, presenting clear, relevant, and substantive points, fostering a more insightful and engaging debate.

My firm belief is that a well-defined framework is the cornerstone of effective critical thinking. The winning edge in any argument or debate is a balanced blend of analytical perspective, scientific evidence, and references from reputable authors.

UPDATED 10/12/2024 Bargain Belt Update

All this is pretty old. I'll listen to anything. I'm good with Ks, Ts, theory and anything you want to run. Add me to the email chain: sarahsherwood22@gmail.com

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 18 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning

I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.

I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.

Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.

Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

<if i judged you at peninsula and you would like to get more feedback, you can reach me at jvictorino0.forensicsjudge@gmail.com>

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Congress, LD, PF - I can give adequate enough feedback, always sharpening my skills in these areas.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread.

- Be polite.

-Track your own time.

- I like quick off-time road maps.

- For those debaters who have Nuclear War as an argument - I hope you have evidence to support it.

Good luck!

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

email chain >>>>> speech drop

I flow on paper (adjust your speed accordingly, allow for pen/flow time, and prioritize clarity over speed).

I'll flow what I hear and refer to the doc for evidence if necessary

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, racism, queerphobia, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

About me:

Debated policy for 5 years at CSUF, started as a college novice & also did IEs. I've coached policy, PF, and MSPDP, and I am currently coaching LD.

• Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.

• More than 5 off creates shallow debates & becomes a game of technical concessions that are frustrating to evaluate. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Cat Smith, Kwudjwa Osei, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough

Some thoughts on specifics:

Policy v K: I generally think more time should be spent on the FW debate. How and why should I (not) evaluate the AFF?

• The link debate- link analysis is key on both sides. Specific/contextualized links are best.

• The alt debate- If ur going for the alt, help me visualize what I'm voting for before the 2NR

K v K: Love KvK debate. Creating an organized story is important (especially in LD bc time constraints)

• I consider myself well-read in many different areas of critical theory, but I wanna know how those theories apply to this debate and this AFF/NEG position. I'm here for it. Just explain

FW v K AFFs: I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts and performances matter just as much as the legitimacy ppl give to fiated plan texts.

• I prefer the counter-interp route (bc it's easier for me to compare models in my head), but I'm not unwilling to vote for the impact turn. I just need a deeper & clearer explanation in these debates

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", (procedural) fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but the AFF has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are more persuasive to me).
TLDR: You need to prove why clash generated by the content of your stasis point is good/important/necessary

If I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

• also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you












Paradigm for LD, Public Form, Parliamentary Debate, & Congress:

Participants will be scored on a rubric

28-30 Student demonstrates a complex understanding of the subject with a wide range of statistics from reliable sources and journals. Student cites academic authors in the respective field of study who examine the issue critically. Student demonstrates understanding of information peers examine and provides additional citation material for their reasoning.

26-28. Student demonstrates a complex understanding of the subject and provides some citations. These citations are from web sources or media. Student demonstrates some understanding of peer arguments and provides commentary on what the students state.

24-26. Student demonstrates an understanding of the subject at hand.

0. Student pontificates and makes an emotional argument. Student provides no citations to support their claim. Or, the student does not speak at all. Or, the student makes an argument that is confused/irrelevant.

Parent judge.

Please speak clearly and loud enough for me to hear you.

Please be respectful.

Please do not just read.

Please stay on topic.

No spreading. It is okay to talk at a quicker rate but remember that I need to understand you. If I do not understand you, it doesn't matter if you make the better arguments.

I’m a volunteer parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand the points you're making. Be succinct with your reasons and keep track of your own time. Maintain a respectful environment.

not speaking too fast ty